MAILBAG - July 31, 2006

Nothing reasonable about this group

Ah, the good old days, but let’s be careful of what we wish for.

A close look at the roster of Return to Reason’s members/contributors show a number of non-resident “reasoners” and even more interesting, their home cities are using those procedures that they seem to be set on discouraging in Costa Mesa.

For years now our neighboring cities have used various “ploys” in their attempts to “stack” the council in Costa Mesa to assure that Costa Mesa “tows the line.” The use of immigration issues seems to be nothing more than an attempt to justify their involvement in Costa Mesa politics and the selection of candidates who might be more receptive to their wishes over and above immigration and charitable issues.

Ask yourselves: When was the last time you donated your time and money to support a Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, or Irvine council election? And yet, here they are.

Let’s look at just a few of their efforts and how control of our city council would be to their benefit.

Newport Beach wants Costa Mesa to relinquish its claims on West Santa Anna Heights and the Santa Ana Country Club (and their associated tax revenues) so that they may be incorporated into Newport Beach. Meanwhile (back at the ranch) Newport Beach has claimed a 12-inch-wide strip of land running through the county property that abuts Costa Mesa, irrespective of any logic or reasonable application of the “sphere of influence” process. Our council wants to fight this “land grab” but how would a council of “reasoners” with their Newport Beach supporters address this?

And, oh by the way, this land (coincidentally) is the location of the proposed 19th Street bridge.

Irvine had recently supported a light-rail transit system that would pass through Costa Mesa. Our council said no, but what would be the effect of a “reasoners” controlled council handling of this issue? By the way, have you received your “Great Park” parking pass yet?

Not to be left behind, Huntington Beach recently signed a lucrative contract to “treat” used cooling water and proposed routing the required piping through the streets of Costa Mesa. Our council said no, but how would our “reasoners” respond? Consider the street damage for years.

Groups such as Return to Reason allow donations to candidates without the messy audit trails that could help identify a candidate whose interests may be beyond the boundaries of Costa Mesa.

These are the same set of circumstances that the voters were presented with in our last election when out-of-town interests sought to control (eliminate) the Westside revitalization project. And it looks like they are going to support those same candidates that the out-of-towners supported last election.

What is it we are returning to?

MIKE BERRY

Costa Mesa

A few thoughts on city hall debate

After reading the ongoing discussion regarding the proposed Newport Beach city hall, I felt compelled to respond. When you read the varied opinions from the residents of Newport Beach, two things seem to be coming to the surface as the primary issues with this proposal.

First, the classic NIMBYism put forth by the residents who live in Corona del Mar and refuse to take on any of the burden of a new city hall. From the sound of it, you would think the city is trying to ram a huge hotel development or other commercial project down their throats. If that was the case, I too would be lining up against this proposal.

However, what seems lost on these people is the fact that this is a city project that will serve all of us, including those who live near by. Do the residents of Corona del Mar not use City Hall and its services? The answer is of course they do and it just may be time for them to shoulder some of this burden as the residents and businesses of West Newport have with City Hall’s present location.

Second is the issue of a “lost” park that had been promised. From what I can see, there still is plenty of room for another park above the City Hall site.

However, even that idea is questionable on this site. Is it a traditional park with grass swings, etc.? Which in my opinion is a waste because it’s not near residential neighborhoods. Do you want your kids playing among the traffic in the surrounding area? Or, a passive park (or “weed park” as it’s been called) which I assume is intended for nature to embrace. How many wild animals are going to feel comfortable boxed in all four sides with the development that dominates the area? I think it’s important that the distinction is clear here. This isn’t about a commercial development that has stolen this site away with some backroom deal. The city owns this property and the city is rethinking it’s options on how best to use this site.

Just maybe, as John Heffernan pointed out in his recent commentary, not all the facts were presented at the time this was voted on in the past and we need to look at this site again given the current set of facts.

DONALD MURRAY

Newport Beach